The year in science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:18:53 GMT

And where is all this going to end up? I'd sure like to be around in a 100 years to see where all this goes. I am some kind of champion for science but really, I sure hope the brakes are put on certain aspects of these endeavors. Science fiction has become realities within reach. And many of those SF stories are darkly prophetic.

The year in science

L. Govednik, Clatsop County, Oregon — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:47:17 GMT

The year in science

RiddleOfSteel, San Diego, CA — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:21:22 GMT

And where is all this going to end up?

Hopefully with more breakthroughs to improve the human condition, just like science has been doing since it was first conceived of as a method of explaining the unexplainable.

I'd sure like to be around in a 100 years to see where all this goes.

So would I, but I think our reasons differ....

I am some kind of champion for science but really, I sure hope the brakes are put on certain aspects of these endeavors.

What in the world for? Did science commit another "no-no" and provide a better explanation for something than religion was able to do?

Science fiction has become realities within reach.

Beautiful, isn't it?

And many of those SF stories are darkly prophetic.

Aha!! Just as I thought...another religious zealot who thinks that his respective deity expects mankind to have never left the caves he once dwelled in in favor of warm, cozy, houses and apartments.

What are scientists thinking? Don't they know that people who follow 2000 year old superstitions get a little bit heated when we find answers to things that are contrary to their ancient, bloodthirsty, holy books?

Good thing everyone in the world doesn't think like [this] -- we'd still be wearing animal skins for clothing and dying from things like the common cold by the millions....

The year in science

Larry Nerney, Daly City, CA — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:12:08 GMT

For the future America has to find the money to continue to educate in the Sciences, and Math. Where will the next discoveries come from if all our children know how to do is take tests.
We need leaders for tomorrow, and they must come from school now.

The year in science

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:38:24 GMT

Science seems to work best when the scientists are involved in "hands-on" work. When they indulge in conjecture (The God Particle, Dark Energy, Eleven Dimensions and similar subjects) they often appear to have read too many science-fiction novels.

Vivid Imagination is nevertheless the most valuable
attribute for any scientist to use as a lever to pry information out of conjecture, and thereby find a new place on which to stand and move the world.

The year in science

Andy Ward, Little Falls, MN — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:19:43 GMT

Well stated RiddleOfSteel. It is crazy how unbelievably close science is getting to unlocking mysteries of the Universe (especially when compared to 100 years ago) and these religousites not only choose to speak against it but want people to believe in their far-fetched fairy tails.

The year in science

Andy Ward, Little Falls, MN — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:35:40 GMT

A better headline would be that "Scientist No Longer Consider Other Theories and Has Taken to Gagging Anyone Who Will Not Agree"

Um... L. perhaps you should take a look at what science is all about... it is not about blindly accepting ridiculous stories. Science is about testable hypothesis and peer reviewal and in order to succeed an idea must withstand rigorous testing. For over 1500 years people believed heavier objects fell faster than light objects. The attitude was "Aristotle said it was so, so it must be true." Nobody bothered to question it. ID is NOT science. It can't be tested. Should we really just accept that a guy built an ship and collected 2 of everything??? Even if the ark story is only there to serve as a guide, one should question respecting a god who killed EVERYTHING because his #1 creation was misbehaving.

The year in science

john holland , new york , new york — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:05:54 GMT

"What in the world for? Did science commit another "no-no" and provide a better explanation for something than religion was able to do?"

Why do some people think calling other people religious makes legitimate arguements and points go away?
Please lose the science can do no wrong attitude. You want to see unethical science please look up transhumanism. When will people learn that some power can't be handled responbily by anyone?
I sense ivory tower elitism of looking down on people and having a elite few decide the future of billions of others. No different from the billionaries who look down on middle class and the poor. Hubris has sadly taken hold of much of the scientific community and refusal to believe that scientist can handle and power without being corrupted by it gets you the label of religious fanatic.

and of couse i'm sure i'll be called a religious fantanic because of my comment even though i've never attended church once in my whole life and the fact i'm not religious.

The year in science

Andrew Easton,Edmond,Okla — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:32:35 GMT

science, truth, reality, reason, logic, athiesm are the marks of sanity. Religion, belief, faith are completely pathetic, and I have no idea why so many cling to it.
Intelligent design is not even a theory (no evidence). Evolution has a mountain of evidence.

The year in science

oneshot, behind you, EBF — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:52:03 GMT

"If you think I'm full of it just rent "Expelled" then you will truly see what is going on it science."

And as we all know, if it's in a movie, it must be the truth.

The year in science

DON RICHARDS MARIETTA,GEORGIA — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:17:49 GMT

2008 HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT YEAR IN SCIENCE, WITHOUT DISCOVERIES LIKE THESE OUR SPECIES WOULD CEASE TO EXPAND AND INCREASE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE AND OF OURSELVES. [SOME PEOPLE] REALLY IRRITATE ME FOR MANY REASONS. MAINLY BECAUSE OF THEIR CREATIONISM/INTELLIGENT DESIGN PROPAGANDA THAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN. IT REALLY GOES TO SHOW YOU WHAT SOMEONE KNOWS ABOUT SCIENCE WHEN THEIR BEST EVIDENCE IS MORE OF AN AD FOR A CORNY BEN STEIN MOVIE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS JUST ANOTHER HALF-BAKED IDEA MADE UP BY RELIGOUS ZEALOTS USING PSEUDO-SCIENCE TO JUSTIFY BELIEF IN 2,000 YEAR OLD FAIRY TALES. IN TRUTH THE ONLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN GOING ON HERE IS THE PEOPLE KEEPING THESE HAIR BRAINED IDEAS IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE LONG ENOUGH FOR A FEW PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THEIR CRAP.

The year in science

Kevin Onstadt — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:24:51 GMT

It is amusing that all those who talk about how bad science is and how good religion is run to science when they or a member of their family become gravely ill.

Apparently faith takes a back seat to science when their life is on the line. If they really had the faith they claimed they would sit home and pray.

Please people, wake up.

The year in science

RiddleOfSteel — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:52:32 GMT

Matter of opinion. A better headline would be that "Scientist No Longer Consider Other Theories and Has Taken to Gagging Anyone Who Will Not Agree". If you don't believe it just ask all those in science who have now lost their jobs because they interjected their ideas towards intelligent design. If you think I'm full of it just rent "Expelled" then you will truly see what is going on it science.

Ben Stein's movie was intellectually dishonest, and contained outright fabrications. Read up sometime as to what the actual circumstances were for those scientists that got "expelled".

One was trying to host his personal religious website on the web server owned by Baylor University (a no-no in any company, university, or institution). He wasn't fired either, just asked to remove the unauthorized garbage from their web server. So...I don't see how he was "expelled"...he was shown some serious leniency.

Another tried to jump on Ben Stein's persecution-complex bandwagon because he tried to publish garbage pseudoscience about the Cambrian Explosion and it got rejected for poor methodology, and poorly conducted research (fairly common in the field of science). The paper was not about ID, as Ben Stein claimed, it was about the Cambrian Explosion...so he got "expelled" for his views on the Cambrian Explosion....(actually, the man in question stopped showing up at work one day, so he "expelled" himself).

Yet another claimed he got fired from ISU because of his ID views, but in reality, he got fired because he did not meet the university's standards and education quotas THAT ALL EMPLOYEES HAVE TO FOLLOW AND MEET.
IOW, he was a p!ss-poor educator, and his student's grades and success rates showed it. It had nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

Yet another educator was getting LOTS of complaints filed against her by her own students, because she kept disregarding the state curriculum in favor of teaching students about ID and creationism, and she wasn't fired for this. Matter of factly, she continued teaching at George Mason University long after the incident, until her TENURE expired, at which point, the university chose not to renew her tenure (gee, how many educators would be able to keep their job if they disregarded state mandatory curriculums to teach whatever they see fit to teach?).

Again, as is always the case.....

MORE LIES FOR JEEBUS...

The year in science

wk — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:42:23 GMT

Idaho National Laboratory developed Nanoantennas capable of absorbing 80% of sun energy compared to current PVC that can only absorb 20% of sun energy, Nanoantennas cost is 10 cent per yard that can be printed or rolled on any surface. Double-sided panels could absorb a broad spectrum of energy from the sun during the day, while the other side might be designed to take in the narrow frequency of energy produced from the earth's radiated heat at night.
A charged future
Although infrared rays create an alternating current in the nanoantennas, the frequency of the current switches back and forth ten thousand billion times a second. That's much too fast for electrical appliances, which operate on currents that oscillate only 60 times a second. So the team is exploring ways to slow that cycling down, possibly by embedding energy conversion devices like tiny capacitors directly into the antenna structure as part of the nanoantennas imprinting process.
"At this point, these antennas are good at capturing energy, but they're not very good at converting it," says INL engineer Dale Kotter, "but we have very promising exploratory research under way." Kotter and Novack are also exploring ways to transform the high-frequency alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) that can be stored in batteries. One possibility is to create antennas with a spiral shape and place high-speed rectifiers, or special diodes, at the center to convert the electricity from AC to DC. The team has a patent pending on a variety of potential energy conversion methods. They anticipate they are only a few years away from creating the next generation of solar energy collectors.

The year in science

Abe Werker — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:42:01 GMT

Only those who believe in God or those who are totally convinced in a certain scientific theory seem to have the answer. Well, I think they are all just as religious.
Let's stick to science, people! Keep an open mind. Who knows what we will discover in the years ahead. You ain't seen nothing yet!

The year in science

steve, The Ivory Tower of Science — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:21:54 GMT

Running with the....
I have no problem with questioning Science...Science welcomes questions. If fact , the more you question, the strong Science becomes, because its theories stand the test of time. The problem with religion is that it dose not welcome questioning, and its patrons are chastised for believing contrary . Religion suggests that you must have faith. Faith is their answer to the Scientific Theory.
I remember hearing Kurt Cameron on TV once stating that fossil records are incomplete...and this was his reasoning for debunking evolution....that is ridiculous! The preponderance of fossil records does hold up...your not going to find every evolutionary branch....its impossible.
When Religion goes head to head with Science, it must always loose out, because it has no proof...no evidence what so ever ...only faith.

The year in science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:04:50 GMT

RiddleofSteel - "Just as I thought...another religious zealot who thinks that his respective deity expects mankind to have never left the caves he once dwelled in in favor of warm, cozy, houses and apartments."

LOL..I am an atheist actually.

The year in science

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:04:52 GMT

Great article Alan! While this year provided some great scientific discoveries I'm hoping that next year will be even better. With Holdren hopefully getting selected by Obama this will mean that real science is back in the White House. For the past 8 years the fools of faith tried to supplant real science with their ignorant rantings about faith based garbage.

I felt that the LHC was the biggest story of the year while progress on the ISS being a good second. I was dismayed when Hubble went down just before the fix mission but then was cheered that NASA was able to restart it so that next year we'll see Hubble made better than ever. I'm so looking forward to seeing the LHC go online next year and hopefully they'll have all the bugs worked out. I hope they find proof of the Higgs Boson, or the "God Particle" that gives gravity it's pull.

I'm just so glad that we'll finally have political support for global warming in the White House instead of the voodoo science of the faith based morons. It's sad that some of those fools junk up this wonderful science column with their ignorant rantings.

The year in science

Tom, Houston — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:10:38 GMT

Is this the same Holdren who walked hand in hand with Paul Ehrlich? Limits to Growth? I=PAT?

Sounds worse than Bush's inane picks to me.

The year in science

Phillip Dickey, Houston TX — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:40:12 GMT

I'm very pleased about advances in IPS cells. Were it not for Bush's decision to not spend taxpayer money on embryonic cell research, these developments would not have seen light, and we'd still be doing research that, in the minds of many people, amounts to abortion and/or murder.

The year in science

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:34:22 GMT

Thomas Ashby was accused of being a religious zealot. I think that’s funny.

It’s obviously Riddle’s first time here. And Riddles is just as obviously a little paranoid. And while I respect Thomas’ point of view, lacking as it is, Riddle offended me by throwing Thomas over to my side. I can only imagine how Thomas feels. That’s the part I find funny.

And Riddle. Scientists have to be able to interperet data. It’s interesting that you would seize on one potential meaning of prophetic and abandon all others. Especially since you can only reach your interpretation by phrase isolation. In context the statement had no religious connotation. You’re prejudiced against people with a vocabulary.

It’s also interesting that this could break down so easily to religious tantruming.

The year in science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:44:34 GMT

Tim Rommes "And while I respect Thomas’ point of view, lacking as it is"

Care to explain that? In my OP I said "I sure hope the brakes are put on certain aspects of these endeavors". The key word here is aspects. If you want me to go into a long drawn out post as to what I mean here ..I won't..not my style.

The year in science

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:23:27 GMT

More general than that. You debunk religion because God couldn't possibly be responsilbe for life on earth, and at the same time lack any credible explanation for life. Granted, any evidence would be, literally, burried in time. Same goes for man. You tout that man was not created by man, but lack any evidence for your view that man evolved from any preexisting thing. Again, as I have said several times before, if it is the case that man evolved from something else, fossil evidence that exists may never be found, and fossil evidence may not exist despite the fact, if it were the case, that it happened. You bust on the religious for having faith in something and all the while express your beliefs that are based soley on faith. Just a different faith. There is a vast difference between scientifically sound and proven. You treat your baseless beliefs as proven. Moreso, I think, than I do my religious ones.

A case where context is key. I was referencing Riddle's newness. This makes no sense if the comment were about your then present remarks. The point of view you have held for some time.

As to your remarks here, I agree completely. Rare as that is. I just don't know what OP stands for.

The year in science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:58:29 GMT

Tim Rommes..OP = Original Post

The year in science

t. hll,mt. pleasant, mi. — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:25:23 GMT

love or hate it, science rocks! i don't see any rift between belief in a divine creator and human attempts to understand the reality in which we live by scientific examination. also, belief in divine or supernatural creators goes back thousands of years. that does'nt change the fact we are supposed to examine everything because that's why we are here.

The year in science

oneshot, behind you, EBF — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:45:49 GMT

"I hope they find proof of the Higgs Boson, or the "God Particle" that gives gravity it's pull."

I thought the Higgs field is where particles acquire their mass...

The year in science

Malcolm Baker, Sacramento (Excremento), California — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:22:03 GMT

Have you guys ever considered co-opting religion?
Say that there was intelligent design in how the Big Bang "BANGED"!!

The year in science

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:48:56 GMT

"Science seems to work best when the scientists are involved in "hands-on" work. When they indulge in conjecture (The God Particle, Dark Energy, Eleven Dimensions and similar subjects) they often appear to have read too many science-fiction novels."

Nevertheless, that's how the Universe is. Quantum Physics, though we still don't completely understand it, just *works.* Many electronic devices (including the one you're sitting in front of) depend on those processes that make no sense in classical physics. It's utterly counter-intuitive...and no one ever promised the Universe *would* meet our intuitive expectations.

Any attempt to merge it with General Relativity will be just as exotic and 'science-fictionish.' The only problem is finding the explanation, however radical, that can be proven (or disproven...falsifiability is one fo the biggest ways that science differs from religion and philosophy) to be the one that fits the facts we have, and predicts others we can look for.

"The Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we *can* imagine."
- J.B.S. Haldane

The year in science

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:59:49 GMT

Frank Glover - you're right. And I totally agree with you. My post was meant to illustrate the difference between many of the problem-solvers that Allan publicizes here and the problem-proposers whom he also writes about.

We live in both the Newtonian macro-universe and the Einsteinian micro-universe at the same time. Science-fiction can help us bridge the gap. But then, so can religion.

The year in science

MB Kitchen, Virginia Beach VA — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:20:15 GMT

"When they indulge in conjecture (The God Particle, Dark Energy, Eleven Dimensions and similar subjects) they often appear to have read too many science-fiction novels."

Yeah, that damn conjecture stuff, like E=MC2. Don't allow them to go down that road, they might find the answer to quantum entanglement or other foolish conjectures.

The year in science

Andrew R, San Diego, CA — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:28:40 GMT

Selecting a Malthusian idiot like Holdren pretty much says that science under the Obama regime will be nothing but politically correct Lysenkoism. Holdren is, even today, an admirer of that idiot Paul Ehrlich ("The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." - from Ehrlich's The Population Bomb).

Holdren even participated in Ehrlich's bet with Julian Simon - and lost big like Ehrlich.

That an idiot like Holdren will be leading the p.c. chorus for the hoax claims of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is actually good news. His incompetence means the hoax will collapse sooner than later.

The year in science

John D Oregon — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:19:39 GMT

Scientists may explain what they think is happening and what they think needs to be done, but what we should do is ultimately a political decision. Just because someone is a scientist or a doctor doesn't mean that they are any less venal and self-serving than anyone else.

Legislation that overreaches is going to be in court for years. There is not going to be any forced relocation of people into dense, "green" housing any more than cars are going to be replaced by hybrids or electric. At least not for many years. That stuff is going to be for those who can afford it, a sector that is fast shrinking.

Sorry, between my comfort and employment, and your plans to save the planet, I come first.

The year in science

Roderick Reilly — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:56:59 GMT

Why would anyone wnat to clone Neanderthals?

We already have 535 of those on Capitol Hill.

The year in science

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:27:33 GMT

Well Roderick, what's in a capitol?

The year in science

Seth R., East Tennessee — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:25:26 GMT

In response to all those "religion bashers," you've all clearly demonstrated that you, on blind faith, simply have accepted the line(s) fed to you by a "scientific" establishment, whose agenda is clear. They cannot accept the possibility that there's a divine creator because to do so would be to accept that they are not masters of their own destiny and that that they are accountable to that creator. If any of you had really studied with a scientific mind, you would have found that every discipline of science has already come to the [not so] alarming conclusion that the universe displays a handiwork, the design of which is self-evident of creative design, every discipline, that is, except biology related ones. If you would have even bothered to study the simple cell, you would have discovered what is already known, that microbiology cannot not have simply "evolved" from lower forms of life. I speak of the concept of "irreducible complexity." [Look it up!] Evolutionary biologist and sypathetic "scientific" individuals
refuse to accept what they see and strive to maintain public consensus for the evolutionary theory (and evolution is ONLY a theory) not because the evidence concludes it but because they are highly motivated to establish their own world and huministic views. Even Ricard Dawkins himself has admitted that the macro and micro universe strongly indicates "intelligent design" but shrugs such a conclusion off by saying that even if objective biological scientific investigation indicates design, it must be that "extra-terrestrial" (non-divine) beings must have seeded life on earth, but that those being themselves must have been the product of evolution! So, again, for all those "intelligent design" bashers, keep yelling. You're only proving that you've allowed yourself to be shovel-fed the party line and are now regurgitating it all over the internet, never having bothered to study REAL science with a truly objective eye. You are the real propoganda sheep!